18495: (Craig) NYTimes.com Article: U.S. Officials Hint at Support for Haitian Leader's Ouster (fwd)

[Bob Corbett <corbetre@webster.edu>]

From: Dan Craig <hoosier@att.net>

U.S. Officials Hint at Support for Haitian Leaders Ouster
February 12, 2004
By CHRISTOPHER MARQUIS

WASHINGTON, Feb. 11 - As the Haitian crisis deepens, with
violence flaring and President Jean-Bertrand Aristide
locked in an impasse with his opponents, the Bush
administration has placed itself in the unusual position of
saying it may accept the ouster of a democratic government.

The stance recalls the administration's initial response to
the April 2002 coup attempt against another elected,
populist leader in the hemisphere, President Hugo Ch?vez of
Venezuela. American officials touched off an outcry by
appearing to blame Mr. Ch?vez for the uprising and
consulting with his would-be successors.

Richard A. Boucher, the State Department spokesman, said
Tuesday that "reaching a political settlement will require
some fairly thorough changes in the way Haiti is governed,
and how the security situation is maintained."

A senior State Department official, speaking on the
condition of anonymity, said that the administration
favored dialogue to ease Haiti's crisis, but that it might
support replacing Mr. Aristide, who has two years left in
his term.

"When we talk about undergoing change in the way Haiti is
governed, I think that could indeed involve changes in
Aristide's position," the official said.

Administration officials stopped short of calling for
President Aristide's resignation, but their remarks were
seen as emboldening a widening and unwieldy opposition -
including former supporters, armed gangs, demobilized army
members and political foes - that seeks his removal.

Officials contacted on Wednesday said the remarks were not
intended to signal a change of policy or support for Mr.
Aristide's resignation. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell,
discussing the 2005 budget, told lawmakers: "Haiti is a
very difficult issue right now. We are monitoring it very
closely."

Mr. Aristide was a parish priest in 1990 when he was
elected president, winning overwhelmingly in an
internationally supervised vote and gaining an almost
mythic status among Haiti's poor. Ousted in a military coup
in 1991, Mr. Aristide was restored to power the next year
by the Clinton administration and American troops.

The return of Mr. Aristide was a high point for
pro-democracy advocates in Haiti and for his supporters in
Washington who, like the Congressional Black Caucus,
praised the Clinton administration for upholding democratic
principle in a country of little strategic importance. But
many Republicans, including some who are now in the current
administration, disdained the intervention. Mr. Bush, as a
presidential candidate, called it a misguided exercise in
nation-building.

The intervention curbed a huge exodus of boat people bound
for South Florida in often flimsy vessels. But after a
decade and about $900 million in American development aid
to Haiti, most officials and regional analysts agree that
the country has made little progress.

Mr. Aristide has come under harsh criticism, and even some
supporters voice dismay at his autocratic style. In
elections in 2000, Mr. Aristide's opponents disputed the
victories of several legislators aligned with the
president; the opponents then boycotted the vote later that
year that re-elected Mr. Aristide. The dispute has
effectively paralyzed the government, and Mr. Aristide has
failed to reach out to critics with jobs or resources.

"Aristide has felt that his power was strong enough that he
feels he doesn't have to play the traditional Haitian
political game," said Robert Maguire, the director of
international affairs at Trinity College in Washington, who
is on friendly terms with Mr. Aristide. "He has alienated
many, many people."

Several groups have sought to broker peace arrangements,
and the Bush administration says that its policy is to
support the efforts of the Caribbean Community, or Caricom.
But Representative Charles B. Rangel, the New York Democrat
who was an ardent supporter of restoring Mr. Aristide, said
this week that the administration needed a more hands-on
approach to force a deal.

"There should be some international intervention to bring
some type of peace accord," said Mr. Rangel. He said he was
not, however, in favor of new military action.

Most analysts agree that it is extremely unlikely that the
Bush administration will send military forces to Haiti
unless the violence grows worse or a refugee exodus appears
likely.

"It's hard to see the way out of this without military
intervention," said Rachel Neild, a senior associate at the
Washington Office on Latin America, a human rights and
policy group. "I don't see the administration being in
favor of that."

One State Department official, briefing reporters this
week, said the administration was determined "to exhaust
every diplomatic option available, before moving on to
another level." Asked what "another level" might be, the
official replied: "I wouldn't want to speculate."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/12/politics/12DIPL.html?ex=1077584796&ei=1&en=cae8b496d0bbe0d7
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company